It’s astonishing how little attention is paid to the discipline of conversation. Nor is there any recognition that conversation is a discipline. Yet, extensive research has shown that one of the most important changes in business is the burgeoning role of conversation. Fifteen years ago, “conversational leadership” was emphasized as a key component of success. Most recently, Michael Slind and Harvard’s Boris Groysberg have flipped that idea on its head, revealing that leadership is conversation.
Over the past five years many of my clients have dragged me into the depths of their conversational issues. They paint their situation in subdued language, quote their colleagues and clients, and then, often desperately, ask for help in developing the necessary language competencies. Their jobs depend upon conversational success, making development is priority one.
Although a number of books have been written about conversations over the past years, few zero in on the strategic communication issues faced by organizations. That’s especially true when it comes to intentional interaction, especially as related to research and development, problem solving and decision making, innovation, interdisciplinary teams and strategic sales.
Why then are conversational skills missing from the business radar?
The most obvious reason is that for the last century managers looked down their noses at conversation. Conversation, so the line goes, is “just talk” and of no value at work. Thus, it’s “stop talking and get to work, “and “walk the talk,” or even complaints that “that’s just rhetoric.” In the mid 20th century conversational competency was not that necessary. Pounding that widget, screwing in that bolt, and doing all the things of assembly line manufacturing did not require much in the way of conversation. Talk was viewed, often rightly, as emotional and intellectual stupidity--a waste of time in the assembly line world.
The consequences of that assembly line mentality were numerous: no focus upon intentionality, little development of work and professional vocabulary, no training in conversation, and not the slightest emphasis upon intelligent language consumption. Furthermore, it never registered that talk is work. In sum, conversation was ignored because the assembly line did not require it—and didn’t want it.
For another thing, the soft skills are far more difficult to learn and manage than the hard skills. In contrast to physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering, logistics, manufacturing or any other fundamentally hard skill, communication and the social sciences are far, far less predictable, and thus, often frustrating. And in contrast to the hard skills, revise, revamp redo and start all over again, are the norms for professional conversation. And that requires superb vocabulary, knowledge of conversational patterns, intentional planning, quick responses, a terrific amount of adaptability, and, often, a great deal of self-confidence. Some necessary conversations are downright scary. So you can see confidence wane as a person wonders whether a question should be asked, but is fearful to engage. Numerous folk say point blank that they “just can’t ask (or say) that.” As a result, their business suffers monstrously.
A third reason talk competencies are ignored is that many folk think effective communication is just “natural.” You’ve got it—or you don’t. But if you’ve paid much attention to those “natural’ conversationalists, you’ve seen few who can cut through the crap, get to the point and identify the patterns and implications buried within the conversation. In short, their fumbled inarticulateness suggests that conversation can’t be learned. Furthermore, if a person decides it can be learned, there’s little in the way of significant help for gaining “business talk competencies.” And certainly there are neither overnight formulas nor classes in instant communication.
A final reason that interactional communication gets short shrift is the lack of protocol-oriented case studies. Case studies in the field are beginning to show up, however, they tend to be written from an organizational behavior perspective, with little insight into how to behave and what, concretely, to say. The level of inference, those abstractions, opinions and recommendations, from which educators teach and train is simply not operational. They focus on theory but do not provide the verbal data needed to understand. All of us learn by watching and mimicking. Although we are born with a grammar, the vocabulary has to be added. But the vocabulary necessary for success in today’s business is often, sometimes largely missing. As a consequence, even when coaching execs from some of the finest backgrounds in the world, I’m asked, “how do you say that?” For many, that will require a great deal of vulnerability.
Can professional conversation be learned?
Thirty years ago, physicians and nurses were given absolutely no training in communication skills. Zip! Nada! None! Older generations remember that many physicians of the past were arrogant communication assholes, not even conversationalists. We were fearful to ask them questions and they didn’t think we needed the answers, especially if they didn’t really know the answer. And they sure as hell had no competencies for explaining medical issues in lay language. Most were neither interested-- nor capable--of putting the cookies on the bottom shelf.
But go to any of the better clinics or hospitals today and listen to the wonderful changes. You’re asked permission before any diagnosis or interaction takes place. You’re told what will happen, how it’s liable to feel and why it’s being done. Then you’re kept up to date as the procedure continues, and even told the diagnosis, when available, all in layman’s terms. Why the change? Schools of medicine and nursing now spend a great deal of time teaching their candidates cutting-edge patient conversational competencies. In fact, if med students or nurses can’t demonstrate they’ve learned those competencies, they’re liable to be dropped from the program.
Admittedly, physicians and nurses have a built-in control of the doctor/patient situation that few in business, even CEOs, ever have the good fortune to achieve. There’s a reason for that: business folk typically face levels of interactional and language complexities far beyond that of the medical field.
Learning how to communicate effectively is not at all hopeless. For a model protocol-oriented case, you will find my own white paper instructive: “How to ask questions and not be perceived as a dumb ass.” The contributors of that white paper were a number of folk who wanted to learn how to question and got involved in its writing and rewriting. What the paper reveals is that we were able to up the ante by designing interventions people truly wanted and involving them in the process. And that’s one learning model you’ll find very helpful at your organization.
Flicker: Conversations from Breaking Bad, by Carole